Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Spousal Maintenance: Confronting the Emotion
In negotiations, as in mediation, many divorce attorneys find spousal maintenance to be one of the most difficult areas of conflict to resolve. This may be because spousal support often represents something entirely different for each spouse, and for each couple: Is maintenance meant to compensate for pain and hurt when the other party is leaving the marriage or having an affair? Is maintenance required to reimburse one party for past contributions to the career of the other party or to the family? Is maintenance viewed as an entitlement to one party or a source of guilt or failure to another? Was spousal support part of the “social contract” created within the family, which determined that one parent would stay home with children? Or were the parties never able to agree on such a social contract in the family during the marriage but one parent stayed home anyway? Is maintenance a source of anger because the receiving spouse is not working to his or her full “potential”?
As divorce attorneys, we know there are so many more variations, and that most couples do not have the same underlying view of maintenance; therefore, they have difficulty coming to a resolution in negotiations. There are certainly the legal, statutory factors to consider in negotiations; we can compare and contrast cases and discuss each factor and how they might be resolved by a judge, but such discussions are usually devoid of the real feelings the parties have about spousal maintenance. Thus, the parties never seem to find a resolution that does not feel thrust upon them. It is akin to discussing “grounds” for divorce in New York, when each statutory “ground” never really matches the couple's reasons for separating, but the couple is forced to accept a ground to obtain a divorce nonetheless. The law must be discussed and considered; nevertheless, I would argue that helping the parties to express and understand their underlying feelings about spousal support, with both parties present in a room together, could help the parties proceed to settlement with far greater ease.
Breaking Down the Barriers
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.